The price of carbon hit a record low in Europe on Monday as the over-supply of emissions permits during the global economic downturn continued to undermine the carbon market.

The price fell below 4.8 euros in early trading, before recovering to above 5 euros by late afternoon.

Carbon permits are a mechanism designed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, as companies have to pay to emit C02. A sharp drop in demand for energy has led to a massive oversupply of permits. Critics of the EU's Emissions Trading System also argue that the European Union issued too many permits in the first place. The EU has proposed freezing up to 900 million permits to tackle this oversupply.

"There are too many permits because of the recession," said Isaac Valero, spokesman for EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard.

The price of carbon recovered slightly on Monday after demand for an auction of 3.5 million permits was stronger than expected. A weak carbon price undermines efforts to reduce C02 emissions.

The price of carbon needs to be a good deal higher than 5 euros - some believe between 25 and 30 euros - to provide an adequate incentive for companies to cut emissions and invest in cleaner technologies, experts say. The carbon market is central to Europe's efforts to meet its climate change target of a 20% reduction in C02 emissions from 1990 levels by 2020.

Climate alarmists hope that Hurricane Sandy and President Obama's re-election will coerce panicky congressional Republicans into a "carbon tax" deal in 2013. But simple math shows the tax would have no effect other than an inflationary one.

A carbon tax would operate as a new sales tax on goods and services that are produced through or otherwise involve the burning of fossil fuels. You might pay the tax in your electric bill, at the gas pump or in the form of higher prices for other good and services.

The purpose of a carbon tax would be to penalize fossil fuel use in hopes of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, which have been hypothesized to cause global cooling (1970s), global warming (1980s-1990s), climate change (2000s) and extreme weather (2010s).

While higher prices for goods and services aren't inherently evil, their merits must be judged by what consumers and society get in return. So let's consider a carbon tax from a climatic perspective.

To give a carbon tax the maximum advantage in our analysis, we'll assume that it would be totally successful in reducing U.S. carbon emissions — i.e., the U.S. emits no carbon dioxide whatsoever from fossil fuels. And let's also imagine that this public policy wonder has this magical effect as of Jan. 1, 2013.

Alan Jones is Australia's most popular talk back presenter. Alan Jones is a phenomenon. He is described by many as Australia's greatest orator and motivational speaker. Alan has the mind and capacity to make complex issues understandable to the largest Breakfast audience in Australia.

Click source for MUST LISTEN Interview:

Alan Jones speaks with David Archibald of the Australian Climate Science Coalition.

Warren Duffy is leading the opposition to the California cap and trade carbon credits that may cost the average family of four as much as $4,500 a year. In this 25-minute interview he explains everything you need to know about cap and trade:

With global temperatures flat-lining for 15 years, climate alarmist arguments are looking far more fragile than the earth’s (actually robust) eco-system. Of late, climate activists of all ideological shades have thus attempted to posit a “third way” between the “extremes” of interminable left-right, alarmist-sceptic arguments.

Thus the new climate mantra is for a global carbon tax. It is, so we are told, the best way to “incentivise” people to act on the “problem” and provide a “solution”. Step forward Tim Worstall of the UK’s Adam Smith Institute (ASI) and his “third way” contentions.

Now I like Tim Worstall (TW). Tim is a senior fellow at the excellent UK ASI free market think-tank. Generally speaking, Tim contributes a great deal of worthy economic analysis on public policy issues. But in his belief that “climate change is a problem and yes, we have to do something about it” TW has, quite simply, “lost it”.

The government is attempting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 42% by 2020. Climate Change Minister Stewart Stevenson said exceptionally cold weather conditions in Scotland in 2010 was to blame. Mr Stevenson said "Scotland faced its coldest winter temperatures in almost a century - and quite rightly people across Scotland needed to heat their homes to keep warm and safe".

He added: "The Scottish government remains fully committed to delivering ambitious and world-leading climate change targets. We always knew it would be a challenging path to follow when these were set and that year to year fluctuations were inevitable".

Chris Smith has built an impressive career both in Australia and abroad covering news and current affairs in radio and TV. Chris' radio career began in regional NSW, with many years spent at Network Seven and Nine, where he travelled the world in his role as reporter and Chief of Staff, including six years at A Current Affair. In May of 2005, Chris won the Variety Children's Charity Radio Heart Award for his excellence in radio. While still news focussed, Chris presents a lighter format covering lifestyle and entertainment

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott

Chris Smith is joined by Opposition Leader Tony Abbott to discuss the carbon tax.

Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, the ranking Republican member of the Environment and Public Works committee, told The Daily Caller on Monday that climate change skeptics have won the debate over global warming on Capitol Hill.

“We’ve won the fight because there’s no way in the world they could pass through legislation a cap and trade bill,” Inhofe said, referring to proposed laws that would limit carbon emissions. “It’s dead, gone, forever.”

“The history goes back to 1972 when this whole thing started,” Inhofe said. “And who was it? It wasn’t Al Gore. It wasn’t MoveOn.org. It was the United Nations.”

The United Nations, he said, has been promoting cap and trade style efforts to combat the non-existent threat of global warming for decades. And if such legislation were ever to make its way through Congress, he argued, it would amount to the largest tax hike in American history.

As a bishop who regularly preaches to congregations of every age and at widely different levels of prosperity and education, I have some grasp of the challenges in presenting a point of view to the general public. This helps me to understand the propaganda achievements of the climate extremists, at least until their attempted elimination of the Medieval Warming and then Climategate. I was not surprised to learn that the IPCC used some of the world's best advertising agencies to generate maximum effect among the public.

In the 1990s we were warned of the "greenhouse effect," but in the first decade of the new millennium "global warming" stopped. The next retreat was to the concept of "anthropogenic global warming"; then we were called to cope with the challenge of "climate change." Then it became apparent that the climate is changing no more now than it has in the past. Seamlessly, the claim shifted to "anthropogenic climate disruption."

My suspicions have been deepened over the years by the climate movement's totalitarian approach to opposing views, their demonizing of successful opponents and their opposition to the publication of opposing views even in scientific journals. A point to be noted in this movement's struggle to convince public opinion is that their language veers toward that of primitive religious controversy. Believers are contrasted with deniers, doubters and skeptics.

A film clip featuring the carbon tax that sums it up very well with a number of points. I have researched very thoroughly every aspect of the climate 'debate' and I can say that each point expressed in this video is correct.